RAJKUMAR AGGARWAL, M/S PETRO PRODUCT (TP/30/2020/CR/EZ) vs NAND KISHORE BHIMSARIYA AND ANR

OIP-30
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
INTELLECUTAL PROPERTY RIGHTS DIVISION
ORIGINAL SIDE

Present :
THE HON’BLE JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE

IPDCR/12/2022
RAJKUMAR AGGARWAL, PROPRIETOR OF M/S.PETRO
PRODUCT(TP/30/2020/CR/EZ)
Vs.
NAND KISHORE BHIMSARIYA AND ANR.


Mr. Sayantan Basu, Sr. Adv.
For Applicant :
Mr. Tanmoy Roy, Adv.
……...Advocates
Mr. Sunil Kr. Singhania, Adv.
For the Respondent no. 2 :
Mr. Asit De, Adv.
….….. Advocates


Heard on
: 05.05.2026
th
: 5 May, 2026
Judgement on

Arindam Mukherjee, J:
1. This is an application seeking rectification of a registration of copyright
granted by the respondent no.2 in favour of respondent no.1 under the

2

provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 read with the Copyright Rules,
2013 (in short 2013 Rules).
The grounds of objection raised by the applicant who is hereinafter
referred to as petitioner are as follows:-
1) The respondent no.1 while making an application for registration of
his copyright was required to comply with the requirements under
Rule 70(6) and 70(9) of the 2013 Rules, which are set out hereinunder
for the shake of convenience.
“70(6) – Every application for registration in respect of an artistic work
which is used or is capable of being used 1 [in relation to any goods
or services], such application shall include a statement to that effect
and shall be accompanied by a certificate from the Registrar of
Trade Marks referred to in section 3 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, to
the effect that no trade mark identical with or deceptively similar to
such artistic work has been registered under that Act in the name of,
or that no application has been made under that Act for such
registration by, any person other than the applicant.
(9) The person applying for registration shall give notice of his
application to every person who claims or has any interest in the
subject-matter of the copyright or disputes the rights of the applicant
to it.”
(2) On the application being made, the Registrar of Copyright shall, if no
objection to such registration is received by the Registrar of Copyright within
30 days of the receipt of the application, enter the particulars given in the
application in the register of Copyrights in accordance with the provisions of
Rule 70(10), which is set out hereinunder for convenience.

3

“70(10) – If no objection to such registration is received by the
Registrar of Copyrights within thirty days of the receipt of the
application, the Registrar of Copyrights shall, if satisfied about the
correctness of the particulars given in the application, enter such
particulars in the Register of Copyrights.”

2. It is the further case of the applicant that the respondent no.1 did not
comply with the provisions of Rule 70(6) and (9) of the 2013 Rules.
3. The respondent no.1 was specifically aware about the registration of
copyright granted in favour of the applicant as far back as in 2009 when
the respondent no.1 had applied for rectification of the application for
copyright applied by the applicant. The rectification application on behalf
of the respondent no.1 was rejected pursuant to which the artistic work
of the applicant was registered by the Registrar of Copyright following the
provisions of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Copyright Rules, 1959
prevailing at that point of time. The particulars provided by the applicant
in his application was the Registrar of Copyright recorded in the register
maintained by the Registrar of Copyright as envisaged under Section 45
of the 1957 Act pursuant to the applicant’s application for registration of
copy right being allowed.
4. It is also the case of the applicant that despite being requested not to
proceed with the registration of their copyright, the respondent no. 1
applied for registration by making an application without giving notice to
the petitioner as required under Rule 70 sub-rule 9 of the 2013 Rules.

4

The petitioner was, therefore, not aware of the application made by the
respondent no. 1 and as such could not object to the same within 30
days as provided in Rule 70 (9) of the 2013 Rules.
5. It is further submitted by the applicant that on this ground alone, the
application made by the respondent no.1 for registration of his copyright
ought to have been rejected. The Registrar of Copyright failed to ascertain
such fact and, as such, illegally and unlawfully allowed the registration.
6. It is furthermore submitted by the petitioner that after receiving the
application, the Registrar is required to wait for 30 days to receive any
objection and if there is no objection made, the Registrar, if satisfied
about the correctness of the particulars given by the applicant (the
respondent no.1 in the instant case) would enter such particulars in the
register of copyright.
7. The Registrar of Copyright, according to the applicant, has also failed to
comply with the requirements under the second part of Rule 70(10) of
the 2013 Rules. The Copyright Register in the name of the respondent
No.1, therefore, according to the petitioner, should be cancelled and/or
set aside and the application for the same should also stand rejected for
not having complied with the mandatory requirements.
8. On behalf of the Registrar of Copyright (respondent no.2), it is submitted
that the obligation under Rule 70(6) and (9) of the 2013 Rules is required
to be complied with by the applicant making the application for
registering the copyright (in the instant case the respondent no.1). The

5

respondent no.1 has failed to comply with such mandatory requirements
and as such the registration is required to be set aside on that ground
alone.
9. It is further submitted on behalf of the respondent no. 2 that an
application on being made to the Registrar, the Registrar is only required
wait for 30 days for any objection from the parties who are likely to be
affected by such registration to be filed. If no such objection is received
within thirty days from the receipt of the application as envisaged under
Rule 70(10) of the 2013 Rules, the Registrar has no other option but to
enter the particulars in the register of copyright. The Registrar of
Copyright has followed this requirement and as such there is no fault on
the part of the Registrar. In this context the respondent no.2 relies on a
judgment and order delivered by a Single Judge of High Court of Delhi on
th
8 September, 2025 in C.O.(COMM.IPD-CR)843/2022 (M/s. New Bharat
Overseas -Versus- M/s. Bhagwati Lacto Vegetarian Exports Pvt. Ltd.
& Ors).

10. The respondent no.1 despite being put on notice on several
occasions have not appeared before the Court prior to this date. The
respondent no.2 also remains unrepresented on this date. The written
objection of the respondent no.1 filed before the Copyright Board is on
record. It appears from page 259 in the second volume of the paper book
filed before this Court that in sub-paragraph (iv) under the heading
“parawise reply to counter statement”, the respondent no.1 has admitted

6

that it was an error on the part of the Registrar in not putting the
petitioner on notice. Since the respondent no.1 has chosen not to appear
despite being put to notice, the matter is taken up in his absence
particularly keeping in mind the matter is required to be dealt with only
on interpretation of legal provisions with very little factual involvement.

11. After hearing the parties and considering the materials on record
as also the judgment cited at the Bar, I do not fully agree with the
submissions made on behalf of the Registrar of Copyright (respondent
no.2). It is correct that a person who applies for registration of copyright
is required to comply with the provisions of Rule 70(6) and (9) which has
a force of law. The rules framed under the authority given by the
legislature in the statute has a “statutory flavour” as held in 2011 (11)
SCC 702 (Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala vs. Mandal
Singh & Ors.) by following the ratio laid down in 1975 (1) SCC 421
(Sukhdev Singh & Ors. v. Bhagatram Sardar Singh Raghuvanshi &
Anr.) . The statutory bodies, authorities as well as general public are
bound to comply with the terms and condition as laid down in the rules
as a legal compulsion since they have an effect as an enactment of a
competent legislation though they are subordinate legislation made in
exercise of the power conferred by the statute. The rules in the instant
case are framed in terms of the authority given under the 1957 Act and
as such as a subordinate legislation lays down a legal compulsion. The
rules have to be mandatorily adhered to and has to be conjointly read

7

with the Act itself. Any deviation of the Rules, therefore, has to be
construed to be in violation of the statutory provisions.
12. It is also well settled principles as laid down in Nazir Ahmed-
Versus Emperor reported in 1936 Privy Council 253 and subsequently
followed by the Supreme Court in several of its judgment one of which is
reported in 1975 (1) SCC 559 (Ramchandra Keshav Adke & Ors. vs.
Govind Joti Chavare & Ors.) if a statute provides for doing a thing in a
particular manner it has to be done in that manner or should not be
done at all. It is correct that there is a violation of the provisions of Rule
70(9) by the respondent no.1 while applying for registration of this
copyright at the same time by applying such principles laid down in
Nazir Ahmed (supra) to the facts of the instant case, the procedural
irregularity committed by the Registrar in granting the registration
cannot also be ignored. The irregularity is of such nature that the
registration granted in favour of the respondent no.1 cannot be cured but
is required to be interfered with.

13. Rule 70(10) as set out hereinabove, according to the plain reading,
has to disjunct part, which is independent of the other. The first part
deals with a situation of not having received an objection by the Registrar
of Copyright within thirty days of the receipt of the application allows the
Registrar the authority to register the copyright but the second part
qualifies the first part imposing a further condition that is satisfaction of
the Registrar. The objection, as mentioned in the first part therefore, has

8

to be read as to its availability with a pre-condition that a person who
intends to object should be aware of the fact that the application is
offending his rights for which he has to have the notice and knowledge of
the application. If the provisions of Rule 70(9) of the 2013 Rules is not
complied with by the applicant then a person who on the registration of
the copyright will be adversely affected does not ordinarily become aware
of such application as a consequence whereof no objection may be filed
within the stipulated period of thirty days from the date of application.
This opens a window. If a mischievous applicant being aware of the fact
that his application is likely to affect someone else adversely does not put
him on notice deliberately about his application, then such person may
not be aware of application to come forth and object to the same. No
receipt of an objection takes us to the next round. On behalf of the
Registrar it is argued that on having not received an objection within
thirty days the Registrar has no other option but to enter the particulars
of the applicant in the register of copyright. This argument is fallacious
as Rule 70(10) as pointed out hereinabove has a separate and
independent provision which requires the Registrar to be satisfied with
the correctness of the application. This is further clear from the
provisions of Rule 70(11) of the 2013 Rules which is set out hereunder
for the sake of convenience:-
“70(11) If the Registrar of Copyrights receives any objections for
such registration within the time specified in [sub-rule (10)], or, if he or

9

she is not satisfied about the correctness of the particulars given in the
application, he or she may, after holding such inquiry as he or she
deems fit, enter such particulars of the work in the Register of
Copyrights as he or she considers necessary.”
14. It will appear from the said Rule that the same also has two parts.
The first parts deals with a situation where an objection is received by
the Registrar. The second part which is disjunct from the first part
clearly indicates that, if the Registrar is not satisfied about the
correctness of the particulars given in the application he or she may after
holding such inquiry as he or she deems fit, enter such particulars of the
work in the Register of Copyrights as he or she considers necessary. On
a conjoint reading of the two parts of Rule 70(10) with the two parts of
Rule 70(11) of the 2013 Rules, the legislative intent is crystal clear.
Whether there is an objection or not the registration is subject to the
substantive satisfaction of the Registrar of Copyright as to the
correctness of the particulars of the application. The correctness includes
the statement and declaration made in the application for registration.
The Rules also grant an authority to the Registrar to make an inquiry, if
necessary to the correctness of the facts. In the instant case when the
Registrar did not receive any objection it was necessary for the Registrar
to satisfy himself about the correction of the particulars provided by the
respondent no.1 (applicant). It is apparent that the Registrar did not
even check the register maintained for including the particulars of

10

registration. Had the Registrar undertook this exercise to satisfy himself
as to the correctness of the application, he ought to have noticed the
registration in favour of the petitioner. The Registrar then could have
called the petitioner and the present situation could have been avoided.
The Registrar, then would have informed the petitioner inviting his
comments. The matter could have then heard on merits and would not
have exposed the order/decision allowing the registration to be
challenged only on jurisdictional ground. In the instant case apart from
non-compliance of the mandatory provisions of Rule 70(9) by the
applicant (respondent no.1), the Registrar has failed to comply with the
obligations contained in Rule 70(10) and Rule 70(11) as discussed
hereinabove. This failure on the part of the Registrar has opened the gate
to the petitioner to challenge the order only on jurisdictional ground
thereby burdened the Court with an additional litigation which may not
have arisen if the Registrar had carried out the exercise of substantive
satisfaction as required under Rules 70(10) and 70(11). The legislative
intention as discussed hereinabove is to provide two-tier check valve
which has failed in the instant case.
15. Since the order and/or decision of the Registrar of copyright
cannot be sustained for the aforesaid reasons, the same is required to be
set aside. At the same time remanding the matter back to the Registrar
as it is an admitted position that the applicant (respondent no.1) has not
complied with the mandatory requirement under Rule 70(9) and the

11

Registrar has failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 70(10) and
70(11) of the 2013 Rules. This is coupled with an admission of the
respondent no.1 that the Registrar committed error in not putting the
petitioner on notice.
16. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the registration of the
copyright of the respondent no.1 is set aside. The Registrar of copyright
is directed to remove from the database and the register of copyright the
particulars of the registered copyright in the name of the respondent no.1
as recorded therein and de-register the same. The application made by
the respondent no.1 on the basis whereof the registration was granted is
also rejected for not having complied with the mandatory provisions in
the light of the discussions made hereinabove. However, the cancellation
of the registration will not stand in the way of the respondent no. 1 in
applying afresh after complying with all the statutory
formalities/requirements.
17. The application for rectification, therefore, succeeds.

18. IPDCR/12/2022 is, accordingly, disposed of.

(ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J.)


Sb/snn